Can anyone get into internet beef without attacking the other person's grammar?
Dear Diary,
Do you agree with this statement?: What Marx is saying is that Jackson managed to make image and choreography more important than (bland, production-line, "soul/r'n'b") music, which was the unifying thread of his bastard children listed. [this list includes Kelly Clarkson, J-Lo, Kanye West, and New Kids on the Block, among others. See below]
Personally, I am not trying to hear anything bad about Michael Jackson. If Billie Jean doesn't make you tap your toes, that's fine. But don't try to call his music crap. No one can even justify a statement like that without bringing up Jackson's physical appearance or his legal battles... which means your problem is with him, not with his music.
I'm leaving this community, The Daily Band, because I don't really care what a bunch of hipsters have to say about music that was not written with them in mind. I don't criticize emo punk rock, I mean pick your battles people. The last straw was the Michael Jackson thread: http://community.livejournal.com/thedailyband/232894.html#comments
People are just supposed to rate an artist, maybe say why they like or don't like them. But comments like this are why I hate the internet:
"I loathe his music like no other.
If you want to blame anyone for the hideousness of contemporary popular music, especially for the empty spectacle that is Idol, blame Michael Jackson.
it is hard to think of a modern entertainer who has contributed less to the artform that has made him famous ... Michael’s contribution to the art of contemporary music has been all show and no substance. At best, he will be remembered as something of a marionette of a songwriter - among the dazzling arrangements by Quincy Jones and others, it’s hard to pick a Michael Jackson “song” down to its precious core.
But what Jackson brought to the stage of pop is a veritable dog shit on the shoe contemporary art, which, much like Jackson himself, turned white but never stopped stinking: the phenomenon of people dancing in unison passed off as “art” ... Christina Aguilera, Boyz II Men, Rihanna, Nick Lachey, J-Lo, Kanye West, East 17, Kelly Clarkson, ‘N Sync, Backstreet Boys, New Kids on the Block, Westlife, The Pussycat Dolls ... these are the heirs and products of Jackson’s vacuous reign - Jack Marx."
The excerpt he posted is the dumbest thing I've ever written, which I let him know. ( http://community.livejournal.com/thedailyband/232894.html?thread=4308414#t4308414) I don't get into internet beef because I think it's silly, but this is Michael fuckin Jackson yall. You don't have to like him, but you need to come hard if you really want to question his talent. And to just say, I don't like him because a Rolling Stones reporter said he was bad, is not nearly as edgy as this guy seems to think it is.
###
Do you agree with this statement?: What Marx is saying is that Jackson managed to make image and choreography more important than (bland, production-line, "soul/r'n'b") music, which was the unifying thread of his bastard children listed. [this list includes Kelly Clarkson, J-Lo, Kanye West, and New Kids on the Block, among others. See below]
Personally, I am not trying to hear anything bad about Michael Jackson. If Billie Jean doesn't make you tap your toes, that's fine. But don't try to call his music crap. No one can even justify a statement like that without bringing up Jackson's physical appearance or his legal battles... which means your problem is with him, not with his music.
I'm leaving this community, The Daily Band, because I don't really care what a bunch of hipsters have to say about music that was not written with them in mind. I don't criticize emo punk rock, I mean pick your battles people. The last straw was the Michael Jackson thread: http://community.livejournal.com/thedailyband/232894.html#comments
People are just supposed to rate an artist, maybe say why they like or don't like them. But comments like this are why I hate the internet:
"I loathe his music like no other.
If you want to blame anyone for the hideousness of contemporary popular music, especially for the empty spectacle that is Idol, blame Michael Jackson.
it is hard to think of a modern entertainer who has contributed less to the artform that has made him famous ... Michael’s contribution to the art of contemporary music has been all show and no substance. At best, he will be remembered as something of a marionette of a songwriter - among the dazzling arrangements by Quincy Jones and others, it’s hard to pick a Michael Jackson “song” down to its precious core.
But what Jackson brought to the stage of pop is a veritable dog shit on the shoe contemporary art, which, much like Jackson himself, turned white but never stopped stinking: the phenomenon of people dancing in unison passed off as “art” ... Christina Aguilera, Boyz II Men, Rihanna, Nick Lachey, J-Lo, Kanye West, East 17, Kelly Clarkson, ‘N Sync, Backstreet Boys, New Kids on the Block, Westlife, The Pussycat Dolls ... these are the heirs and products of Jackson’s vacuous reign - Jack Marx."
The excerpt he posted is the dumbest thing I've ever written, which I let him know. ( http://community.livejournal.com/thedailyband/232894.html?thread=4308414#t4308414) I don't get into internet beef because I think it's silly, but this is Michael fuckin Jackson yall. You don't have to like him, but you need to come hard if you really want to question his talent. And to just say, I don't like him because a Rolling Stones reporter said he was bad, is not nearly as edgy as this guy seems to think it is.
###